David Frum, speechwriter for U.S. President George W. Bush, helped write a speech wherein he included the phrase "axis of evil" that this former President invoked in his speech delivered to the U.S. Congress and broadcast to the world almost 11 years ago. This "axis of evil" around which Iraq, Iran, and North Korea had supposedly coalesced has become added to the normal lexicon in Washington D.C. and the national press corps. This coalescence emphasized Iraq and Iran: the former because of the U.S. invasion, and the latter because they seemingly exercised a combination of overt and covert influence within the body politic of Iraq. Thus, North Korea though receiving media attention was relegated to a tangential evildoer of this "axis."
A few years later in November 2011 Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announces that as America winds down its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, America will shift its focus eastward, marching toward "America's Pacific Century." [1]. President Obama subsequently echoed American foreign policy will continue to "pivot toward Asia." This strategic pivot increases media focus on the escalating tensions on the Korean Penisula. Despite all sides' obvious posturing and rhetoric, this dispute reveals ominous dangers. One element causing so much danger is that no set of concrete and palpable facts explain what has pushed all sides to this war readiness. This dearth of clear causation leaves much rhetorical room for all parties to cling to psychologically comforting narratives. Such narratives focus attention on portrayals of the Kim family as famine-inducing dictators, singularly obsessed with developing nuclear weapons, and the U.S. working to maintain its status as the world power.
The Kim successions seemingly showcase congenital megalomaniacs. The tragic failures that North Koreans suffer to the present day are cited often.[2]. Their megalomaniacal tradition may tempt us to see this latest escalation as the inevitable outcome of a dictator no longer content to rule over a hermit state, but seeks a larger stage whereon the world indulges Kim as a phenomenon, a brand. One example of this stage being developed occurred during a few news cycles covering Dennis Rodman's well publicized trip. Such coverage presents a dichotomy that blends reality show triviality with alarms sounding possible world war. In this vein american media in particular covers this conflict as a daily chronicling of Kim's insanity. Our focus on an insane person should not divert our focus from an equally insane policy that contributes to the latest escalation.
The U.S. and South Korea conduct "War Games" during which both nations coordinate a simulated assault on North Korea consisting of conventional and nuclear weapons. [3][4].War Games can be justified on the basis that they are just "games." But, both the U.S. show of overwhelming force demonstrated in these war games and the U.S. possessing tens of thousands of nuclear warheads could prompt fears that these "war games" foreshadow an attempt at regime change in North Korea rather than a peaceful reunification of North and South Korea.
Of course, no reasonable person can morally justify prolonging Kim's regime. But, our narrowing the focus on Kim causes our overlooking the North Korean people whom we seek to help by hoping to depose their leader. In the abstract, regime change could improve conditions for North Korea's citizens. But, regime change within the current geopolitical climate would only occur at a heavy cost to the North Korean people. Who can calculate that cost? And, who can claim such a cost is worthwhile?
Kim's recent threat to drop nukes on American military bases in the Pacific has triggered the U.S. to state publicly it will defend itself, South Korea, and Japan [5]. America's public statements seem understandable. Moreover, China's reaction is difficult to gauge, which broadens and complicates the geopolitical conditions.
In a universe of instant and comprehensive news distribution, China's reactions to a crisis like this still seem cryptic. For example,
Beijing is well aware that the US is using the Korean crisis to build up its military forces, especially anti-ballistic missile systems, not just in preparation for war against North Korea, but against China itself. The Obama administration’s stoking up of tensions on the Korean Peninsula is part of its confrontational “pivot” to Asia, which is aimed at undermining China’s strategic position and influence throughout the region. [6].
In addition, China seems willing to reduce its support of Kim and even embrace regime change in order to prevent America from using Kim's bellicose rhetoric to justify its military presence on the peninsula:
In response, sections of the CCP bureaucracy are suggesting an end to the alliance with North Korea and even regime change as a means of ending Washington’s ability to exploit the Korean tensions. In February, Deng Yuwen, deputy editor of CCP Central Party School’s Study Times, wrote a comment in the British-based Financial Times declaring that North Korea no longer acted as a strategic buffer for China and could even turn against it. He advocated support for South Korea to integrate the North into a reunified country. [7].
If this accurately represents China's stance on North Korea, would this encourage the U.S. to reevaluate its strategic "pivot toward Asia?"
The U.S. and China's current level of economic interdependence suggests testing each other's resolve is mutually destructive. Their current level of economic interdependence is not the only dynamic affecting U.S.-China relations. Consider, for instance, American's aforementioned war games that also include simulating wars ranging from the middle east to the pacific rim; and, China's efforts to create a clearing bank to which its fellow BRICS members (consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa) would settle financial transactions. The former involves war games in regions containing valuable energy resources which is not a coincidence; equally important, the war games by implication suggest a lack of cooperation between the U.S. and China in obtaining those needed energy resources. The latter is a direct effort to weaken the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Both of these nations' particular efforts show a mutual deliberate strategy to limit each others' power and influence. Consequently, their respective handling of the current dispute on the Korean peninsula suggests it serves possibly as a proxy wherein they both test each other's military resolve. They tested each other's resolve on this peninsula from 1950-53 and we know the cost of that war.
These costs are well known but deserve repeating lest we forget who suffers most when this peninsula becomes a proxy for power politics. Rather than my listing all of the tragic consequences, I will reference one statistic in response: 8-9 million Koreans north of the 38th parallel died during the Korean War 1950-3. [8]. So far American's aforementioned "pivot toward Asia" shows early indications of relying on brinksmanship. Does the U.S. possess more enlightened diplomacy so that its mutual practice of brinksmanship with North Korea will avoid another 8-9 million deaths? That is a rhetorical question that I hope remains rhetorical.
1. Clinton, Hillary Rodham. "America's Pacific Century." Speech delivered on November 10, 2011 at Honolulu, HI. U.S. Department of State: Diplomacy In Action. http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/11/176999.htm
2. CIA-The World Factbook. North Korea. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kn.html. April 08, 2013.
3. "US, South Korea to Stage Another Military Exercise."Voice or America. Aug 14, 2010. http://www.voanews.com/content/us-south-korea-to-stage-massive-joint-war-games-100715664/166204.html
4.Voronstov, Alexander. "Korea: North and South of War." Strategic Culture Foundation: Online Journal. April 02, 2013. http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/04/02/korea-north-and-south-on-verge-of-war.html
5. MacAskill, Ewan. "U.S. Warns North Korea of increased isolation if threats escalate further." the guardian. March 29, 2013. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/29/us-condemns-north-korea-threats
6. Chan, John. "Beijing Confronts Dilemma Over Crisis. Washington is Building Up Military Forces Directed Against China." Global Research: Centre for Research on Globalization. http://www.globalresearch.ca/beijing-confronts-dilemma-over-korean-crisis-washington-is-building-up-military-forces-directed-against-china/5330752. April 10, 2013.
7. Ibid.
8. Willson, S. Brian. "North Korea and the Axis of Evil." Global Research: Centre for Research on Globalization. http://www.globalresearch.ca/north-korea-and-the-axis-of-evil/5329800. April 04, 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment